| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
elephant (0)
|
too large is great for crispy detail but I prefer to see the woman as a whole without scrolling
|
01-04-08 02:00am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
When I download a gallery, I like to get a few select pics in as large a size as I can.
HegreArt has 6000px images, so I'll get those. For most of the other images, 1200 to 1600 is preferred, although sometimes the 1024s are OK.
These days, I never join sites that don't have at least 1200px, and even then, I rarely join them if the pics aren't at least 1536s.
I'm thrilled by sites like 1byDay, Babelicious, MetArt, FemJoy, European Glamour Girls, and HegreArt because their content is so good and available in good sizes.
|
01-04-08 03:15am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
mr smut (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - elephant :
Then you should go for a better image viewer :-) Have you ever tried Irfanview? It's quite nice and allows to resize images to your current screen resolution.
http://www.irfanview.com/
The best of all is that it's freeware!
|
01-04-08 08:54am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
DivBZero (Suspended)
|
Well I probably commented on this type of poll/question every time.
I run a high resolution Apple monitor at 2560X1600 and there is no question that higher resolution images look better.
This trend of more and more pixels for monitors will increase, it would be good to know that an invested collection will look good if not better in the future.
The digital cameras used have huge resolutions, and I for one would like to see no loss twix camera and customer.
So bring on the pixels, the smiles and the well composed photos ..
DivB
|
01-04-08 10:45am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
mr smut (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - DivBZero :
[quote]
This trend of more and more pixels for monitors will increase, it would be good to know that an invested collection will look good if not better in the future.
[/quote]
That's exactly the one point missing that I forgot to write down in my first reply *highfive*
Thanks,
Smut
|
01-04-08 11:06am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
asmith12 (0)
|
I don't like anything that requires scrolling on my laptop's screen (which is 1400 and is unlikely to go any higher any time soon). Viewers (like Irfanview) have 2 problems: they don't work inside browser and quality of resizing isn't that good.
|
01-04-08 11:54am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Toadsith (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - asmith12 :
The in browser comment is a good point - off hand I don't know of any image programs that take over to resize images for the browser. But outside the browser is a different matter - I find there are a ton of good ones - that resize down on the fly as well as Adobe Photoshop does using bi-cubic filtering.
One of the oldest and best is a program called ACDSee. It pulls up images extremely fast and resizes them flawlessly - used to be one program, now has expanded to a family of programs, with different versions for the users specific needs. If I recall correctly Abby Winters uses ACDSee to sort through their own archives of photos. It is pretty powerful program.
Personally, if I like a photoset - I download it and view the whole set on the hard drive because it gets annoying quickly to have to wait for each image to download. I actually usually use just standard old Windows Picture and Fax Viewer - it is pretty quick and quite good at resizing down.
|
01-04-08 01:53pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
mr smut (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Toadsith :
And besides resizing down is no problem at all because you give away some or better say reduce the information but to sample a pic up to a larger size always gives a lousy quality. It's like trying to create matter from nothing which only works in SciFi stories.
ACDSee is quite cool and it supports ZIP-files internally which is working quite fast on old machines as well but if any of you knows a freeware program that can do the same please let me know. Thanks!
|
01-04-08 02:03pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
I have a T-Mobile Dash with full internet access. I'll have to scroll my hot naked babe's photo anyway. So would I an ignoramis If I said smaller pixels?
|
01-04-08 06:47pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Toadsith :
About ACDsee - thanks for suggestion. About Windows viewer - sorry, not good enough for my eyes :-). But the most important thing for me personally is that I'm mostly viewing pictures in-browser only and quite rarely outside browser (I'm more of video fan than picture fan :-)).
As a side observation: if there are lots of people like me, some kind of plugin with decent downsize algorithm can have a business case :-).
|
01-05-08 06:38am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
I picked "other" because all the sizes quoted were in "Portrait" format rather than in "Landscape" which I prefer. Any format from 1024 x 768 up is okay with me.
|
01-05-08 08:03am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
OneMan (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - elephant :
Yeah me too - it's difficult scrolling and changing pics with one hand...! hehe !
|
01-05-08 08:07am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
OneMan (0)
|
10 by 8 all the way.
|
01-05-08 08:08am
Reply To Message
|
14
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
Sounds to me like a lot of people are still playing with Internet Explorer. In Firefox, it's easy to resize images. Somewhere in the settings, depending on the version you run, is an option to "Resize large images to fit in browser window".
To answer the poll, I like 'em in the 1200 to 1600 range. Even with a 32" monitor, when the pictures get too large, it becomes more of a lesson in high school biology than an appreciation of the model. "Gee... look at her hair follicles..."
|
01-05-08 12:08pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #14 - RagingBuddhist :
Phuckin' pixel comedian... HA HA HA HA!!! :D
|
01-05-08 01:02pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #15 - Pinche Kankun :
With yet another uncalled for comment, I'd say you're a real piece of work. I'm here to be constructive and maintain myself like an adult - how about you?
|
01-05-08 02:46pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
gotta love those big high quality 3000 pxl pics.
|
01-05-08 09:43pm
Reply To Message
|
18
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #16 - RagingBuddhist :
Forgive me my fellow porn companion, I had no idea I was being immature.
My belief in regards to porn consists of highly fluctuated orgasms created for natural sex almost from GOD. GOD created sex, meaning he created penis inside vagina and cum on a girls body... or a napkin... or cum inside and make her pregnant... not in her mouth.
So my name should be RagingPincheKankun since I'm always so uncalled for.
I apologize my friend. I was just complementing you on your biology joke cause I thought it was funny. I will refrain from commenting on RagingBudhist because I don't know how to act like an adult.
By the way, THE BIGGER THE ASS, THE BIGGER THE PIXEL!!
|
01-06-08 08:50pm
Reply To Message
|
19
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
Jesus, I didn't know this was a website based on being constructive. Had this website been based more on College Human Sexuality, I be a lot more constructive. This is porn for Christ's sake! This is... Shove your shaft up a girl's tight wet love and blow your volcano all over her island on a nice size 10 by 8 pixel photo (Souns ignorant, Doesn't it?), not college!!
|
01-06-08 09:06pm
Reply To Message
|
20
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
Maybe someone needs to tell me I'M wrong. Yes, it's porn. But does that mean it's necessary to inject a rambling of one's sexual proclivities into every comment made on here?
I could also be wrong in what I thought this forum was all about. I see it as people helping people decide what sites are worth joining and which aren't. I call that constructive. What fantasies I might have doesn't help anyone decide anything - other than that I might have trouble constraining myself in print.
Guess I'll have to work on the wording for a poll on this - I'd really like to know what all people are here for...
|
01-07-08 03:52pm
Reply To Message
|
21
|
SnowDude (0)
|
I'm not a huge photo guy, so I'm mostly looking for a size I can view easily in browser. This also works out in my favor in terms of storage space since the larger sizes break my budget in portable hard drives. ;)
|
01-08-08 06:31pm
Reply To Message
|
